[PATCH libinput 10/20] touchpad: Add tp_button_touch_active function

[Jonas Ådahl]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:27:17AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 04/24/2014 09:16 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> We don't want touches in the button area to cause the pointer to move, add
> >> a tp_button_touch_active function which the main code in evdev-mt-touchpad
> >> can call to see if a touch should be consider a candidate for being the
> >> pointer, should be taken into account for 2 finger scrolling, etc.
> >>
> >> The idea behind the main code polling for this is that in the future with
> >> ie edge scrolling we will have another independent state machine, which
> >> may also want to block a touch from being the pointer, so it is best for
> >> the main code to test all independent state machines, rather then having
> >> the state-machines poke the is_pointer variabel directly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
> >> Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
> >> ---
> >>  src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c | 5 +++++
> >>  src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h         | 3 +++
> >>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c
> >> index f953cd1..e789a87 100644
> >> --- a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c
> >> +++ b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c
> >> @@ -602,3 +602,8 @@ tp_post_button_events(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t time)
> >>  	return rc;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +int
> >> +tp_button_touch_active(struct tp_dispatch *tp, struct tp_touch *t)
> >> +{
> >> +	return t->button.state == BUTTON_STATE_AREA;
> >> +}
> >> diff --git a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h
> >> index 8d8dd84..04da6a6 100644
> >> --- a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h
> >> +++ b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h
> >> @@ -229,4 +229,7 @@ tp_post_button_events(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t time);
> >>  int
> >>  tp_button_handle_state(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t time);
> >>  
> >> +int
> >> +tp_button_touch_active(struct tp_dispatch *tp, struct tp_touch *t);
> >> +
> > 
> > I think the naming here is a bit inconsistent, as a function in the
> > following patch with the same naming convention (tp_touch_active()) is a
> > get:er, not a set:er.
> 
> This is a get-er too.

Ah. Thats interesting. Seems I misread the patch. Thanks for the
clarifications.

> 
> > IMO functions with side effects should have that
> > detail in their name some how, for example in this case _set_active() or
> > _activate().
> > 
> > Also this type of patch fits better as just a detail of the following
> > patch. That is in order to know how the intended use is without having
> > to jump between patches.
> 
> Ok, lets squash the 2 in the next version.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans